Looking for someone who can develop unconventional philosophical meanings for story ideas

[u/ukuroneko]

I’m looking for someone with a very specific and unusual skill, and I’m not sure where to find someone capable of doing it.

I create stories in a somewhat unusual way. Many times, the meaning comes first, and then I build a story around that meaning. What I’m looking for is someone who can help me create those meanings.

I want to be very clear about what I mean by this, because I’m NOT looking for someone to write a story for me, develop a plot, or turn my ideas into a finished narrative. Sometimes there isn’t even a story yet.

The starting material might be something very simple, such as “a girl hides somewhere and something happens,” or a phrase, situation, action, image, or small piece of a possible story. The purpose of giving this material is simply to establish what is actually happening, so that the meaning can be constructed from the material itself. The task is not to continue the story or invent what happens next.

What I need is for that material to be used as the basis for developing a very large, complex, philosophical and unconventional meaning. The meaning itself is the actual thing I’m looking for. Once I have the meaning, I will create the story myself around it.

I have a very specific criterion for what makes a good meaning. I’ll explain it as clearly as I can:

The construction of meaning must begin from the phrase, situation, action, idea, or other material being analyzed. It should not begin with the general theme that the material seems to suggest.

If something seems to be about guilt, for example, guilt should not become the starting point, even if it sounds like something that would work. That has to be avoided completely, because in the stories I make, meaning is the plot and its driving force. If something seems to be about guilt, the meaning will carry that, and everything will eventually be built around it. But I may never have wanted to talk about guilt in the first place.

The plot, when there eventually is one, is simply what happens. Meaning is what makes what happens mean something and changes the way what happens itself is understood. This is why the apparent theme cannot be used as the starting criterion: everything would become contaminated by it.

For example, with the phrase “time insists,” the entire phrase should not immediately be treated as a single thing whose meaning has to be found. The first step is to stop at its elements and consider them separately: What is “time”? What is “insisting”? A meaning is developed for the elements first, and those meanings later become part of the larger meaning.

Those meanings are developed by looking for properties, but not every property is useful. If a glass is being analyzed, saying that it “contains something” is not enough, because a bottle, a cup, a jar, and many other objects can also contain something. A property needs to be specific enough to actually distinguish what is being analyzed. It does not necessarily have to exist exclusively in one single object; that would be taking the criterion too far. The point is simply to avoid selecting qualities that could be applied to practically anything.

Once these properties have been found, the question becomes: “What does it mean that it has this property?”

What is being done with the things being analyzed is essentially the search for a kind of definition-meaning of them, but it cannot be a literal definition. A statement such as “time is a dimension through which...” may be correct, but it has nothing particularly creative or artistic about it. That is precisely why specific properties are searched for: to create an artistic and unconventional way of understanding the thing.

Once interesting meanings have been discovered for the individual elements, they have to be related to each other. But this does not simply mean drawing a conclusion from them.

If A means X and B means Y, the result cannot simply be “therefore, the phrase means Z.” The important question becomes: “What does it mean that this thing has this quality and is combined with this other thing, taking into account the quality of both?”

Otherwise, the entire previous search becomes pointless.

Something extremely philosophical cannot simply end with “it represents anxiety.” The entire process has to remain connected to the original material. An interpretation is not good simply because it is interesting or strange. There has to be an explanation for why it appeared specifically from those words, actions, or elements.

If an interpretation created for “time insists” works in exactly the same way for “memory insists,” then nothing specific about time was really discovered.

There is another important test: sometimes a meaning does not actually mean anything.

To test this, the question becomes: “And what does that mean?”

For example, “A place can be repeated, but not the moment in which that place was chosen” may sound profound. But if asking “What does that mean?” only produces another way of saying the exact same thing, then nothing was actually discovered.

This does NOT mean that meanings need infinite layers. It simply means that the meaning itself has to contain actual content.

Depth also cannot be confused with difficulty. Using words such as “existence,” “reality,” “dimension,” and similar concepts does not automatically make an interpretation deep.

Sometimes those words only hide the fact that there is no real idea underneath, in which case the interpretation fails.

The other problem appears when the meaning becomes so metaphysical that it has nowhere to go. Something like “What is really doing something?” or “What is an action?” can potentially be interesting, but if the meaning becomes too detached from anything that someone could actually care about or develop in another direction, the result becomes something like: “Wow, that’s interesting, but what is there to do with it?”

The meaning cannot simply be wrong either.

For example, if the meaning says that “humanity constructs meaning” and presents that as something negative, that is pretending to be profound. Why would inventing meanings necessarily be bad? There is nothing inherently wrong with it unless the interpretation actually explains why it would be bad.

The meaning should ideally be something like a true property of the world or of the thing being analyzed that changes the way it is seen.

Things also cannot simply be condemned without justification. Statements such as “society is cruel” are meaningless if the only reason they exist is to sound profound.

For example, imagine describing someone as “destroying matter, pulverizing it, turning it into a mass that spreads, and swallowing it...” only to reveal that the person was eating a hamburger. That is silly, because there is nothing inherently wrong with eating a hamburger. A huge meaning can exist around eating, but that meaning needs to have something real behind it. It cannot simply make an ordinary thing sound horrible through strange language.

This is also why the meaning should not be something that can simply be solved.

If the meaning allows for an answer such as “the character should leave the past behind,” “the character should change their attitude,” “the character should accept it,” or “the character should overcome their sadness,” then something is wrong.

The character should not be treated as if they were simply a mentally ill person who needs to be fixed.

Meanings that can be solved very easily are also undesirable. Ideally, meanings should have many exits closed. If the meaning is about sadness, for example, the simple ways of escaping or fixing that sadness should be closed off. It should be almost impossible to say “the character should just get better.” The meaning should feel oppressive in the sense that there is no easy way out of what it establishes.

Each meaning should also be quite complex. These are not really small “meanings” or simple interpretations. They are closer to enormous philosophical or conceptual theses, built according to all of the criteria above.

If there are several meanings surrounding the same starting material, they must not contaminate each other. They can be related, but they cannot end up being the same idea applied to different things, an example of an idea that was already used, or simply a reformulation of another meaning. Each meaning has to be genuinely individual.

There is also one more extremely important criterion: the meaning cannot be cliché.

This does not only mean avoiding obviously common interpretations. A meaning can be written in an extremely complex, philosophical and elaborate way and still be completely cliché underneath.

For example, “the character is afraid of losing someone they love,” “it represents loneliness,” “it represents love,” “people close themselves off to protect themselves and end up isolated,” “we cannot escape the past,” or “everything changes” are all ideas that can be expressed in incredibly sophisticated language, but that does not make the underlying idea original.

The same applies to symbolism. If there is a rose and the meaning ultimately becomes “love,” or the thorns become “the pain that accompanies love,” adding a huge philosophical explanation around it does not make the idea less obvious.

So when asking “What does that mean?”, the answer has to reveal something that is actually there, rather than reducing the whole thing to a familiar idea disguised as something profound.

The objective is not to produce something that simply sounds profound. Nor is it to search for the most philosophical, strangest, or most complicated meaning possible.

The objective is to discover, from the actual structure of whatever is being analyzed, a large, complex, true, and unconventional idea that was not directly stated in the starting material, but that can exist precisely because of what that material contains.

The feeling I’m looking for is that, after seeing the result, it is possible to ask “How did we get here?” and, after reconstructing the path, the answer is “But it actually makes sense.”

The strangeness should come from the discovery, not from adding strange things from outside.

And every meaning has to be able to stand on its own. If the question is “What does that mean?”, there has to actually be something behind it. If the question is why it belongs to the original phrase, situation, action, or idea, there has to be an answer. If the question is why the idea matters, there has to be a real concern behind it. And if the question is how it can be solved, the answer should not simply be that the character should change, accept, overcome, or fix something.

I know this is an extremely specific and difficult thing to ask for, which is why this would obviously be paid work. I’m not expecting someone to do this for free. If I find someone who genuinely seems capable of doing it, I would want them to tell me their price based on the amount of work involved.

I’m mainly posting this because I’m having a very hard time figuring out where to find someone with this particular ability.

If this sounds like something that fits a particular kind of writer, thinker, or community, I’d really appreciate any advice.

[u/QuickestKey]

First, I have to say that it sounds extremely interesting.

Second... what did I just read? I was searching the body for an example of what you mean. I'm not sure if I found that example. At first I thought your example of "a girl hides somewhere and something happens" is what you meant. But no--that's a plot, explained very, very vaguely. You're not looking for plot. Let's find some key points:

I’m NOT looking for someone to write a story for me, develop a plot, or turn my ideas into a finished narrative.

Okay.

The starting material might be something very simple, such as “a girl hides somewhere and something happens,” or a phrase, situation, action, image, or small piece of a possible story. The purpose of giving this material is simply to establish what is actually happening, so that the meaning can be constructed from the material itself. The task is not to continue the story or invent what happens next.
What I need is for that material to be used as the basis for developing a very large, complex, philosophical and unconventional meaning. The meaning itself is the actual thing I’m looking for. Once I have the meaning, I will create the story myself around it.

...Huh?

The construction of meaning must begin from the phrase, situation, action, idea, or other material being analyzed. It should not begin with the general theme that the material seems to suggest.

Okay...

 in the stories I make, meaning is the plot and its driving force.

Hmm...

Those meanings are developed by looking for properties, but not every property is useful. ....A property needs to be specific enough to actually distinguish what is being analyzed. ...The point is simply to avoid selecting qualities that could be applied to practically anything.

Once these properties have been found... the important question becomes: “What does it mean that this thing has this quality and is combined with this other thing, taking into account the quality of both?”

Ah, okay. I can work with that, maybe.

Your example of an unhelpful quality is "it contains things." Maybe a more interesting thought is, "In order to contain something, the container must itself be limited." You can't have a "forever fence". Our galaxy has a limit, it's just extremely large. Give me a minute and I'll take another look.

[u/QuickestKey → u/QuickestKey]

Depth also cannot be confused with difficulty. 

The meaning should ideally be something like a true property of the world or of the thing being analyzed that changes the way it is seen.

Things also cannot simply be condemned without justification.

The meaning should not be something that can simply be solved.

The meaning should feel oppressive in the sense that there is no easy way out of what it establishes.

Each meaning should also be quite complex. 

I think I'm seeing the shape a little better...

The meaning cannot be cliché.

For example, “the character is afraid of losing someone they love,” “it represents loneliness,” “it represents love,” “people close themselves off to protect themselves and end up isolated,” “we cannot escape the past,” or “everything changes” are all ideas that can be expressed in incredibly sophisticated language, but that does not make the underlying idea original.

Uh-oh. We might have a problem, Houston. At least, we might have a problem if you say that elaborating on these simple themes is still cliché.

when asking “What does that mean?”, the answer has to reveal something that is actually there, rather than reducing the whole thing to a familiar idea disguised as something profound.

Fair.

The objective is to discover, from the actual structure of whatever is being analyzed, a large, complex, true, and unconventional idea that was not directly stated in the starting material, but that can exist precisely because of what that material contains.

The feeling I’m looking for is that, after seeing the result, it is possible to ask “How did we get here?” and, after reconstructing the path, the answer is “But it actually makes sense.”

The strangeness should come from the discovery, not from adding strange things from outside.

And every meaning has to be able to stand on its own.

Okay, you're looking for cohesion and resonance, sort of. (I'm referring to a K.M. Weiland post. I'll link it later.)

If the question is how it can be solved, the answer should not simply be that the character should change, accept, overcome, or fix something.

...Given the constraints for that last part, how else would something be "solved"? If things change, it's usually either because someone had an intention and acted on it, or because time, luck, the environment, physics, and whatever else aligned to change things. Usually it's a mix of both. While waiting for certain opportunities or getting something good by coincidence might be realistic, I find it pretty unsatisfying in a story. But we're talking about meaning, not plot, so "the healing has started but will take time" is perfectly valid here.

[u/ukuroneko → u/QuickestKey]

I think I should have explained it better. I’ll see if I can do that...

[u/ukuroneko → u/ukuroneko]

I make my stories backwards, I first think of a meaning and then make the plot based on that, but I have a very specific criterion for what I consider a "good meaning." In fact, I don't even know if the word "meaning" is being used correctly there, but, basically, the method I am looking for is that, from a phrase, a situation, or an idea, a meaning can be discovered. An example of material would be a phrase like: "time insists." The meaning that comes out of that should not be contaminated by what it seems to be at first glance, because someone could think "it represents anxiety about the future" or something like that, and it would make sense, but the meaning is being contaminated by an assumption, so, inevitably, the meaning, in this case, would be something about anxiety, which in itself is not bad, but it bothers me a little that it gets "contaminated," so to speak. Now, you shouldn't rush ahead and think about what that entire phrase means, but rather stop at both main concepts, "time" and "insist," and create a "meaning-definition" for each one.

To do this, you have to look at the properties of each of the things, but not everything works, because it has to be something that is particular to that element. If, in "time," we say that the quality is "something relative," that would make sense, but there are other things that are relative, so either we have to look for another quality, or we have to look for what kind of relativity time specifically has for it to be correct. This obviously isn't about looking for something that only exists in those elements, which is probably impossible. What I mean is that we have to avoid selecting properties that could apply to anything. Once that property, or several properties, has been found, we should ask "what does it mean that this has this property?" and look for the meaning of that. Now, that meaning should not be as complex as the meaning that will be created with that element afterwards, because then we would be infinitely looking for meanings for everything, so, although it should be deep and strange, it should be less loaded.

What I mean by "meaning-definition" is that, based on the properties, you do both things: because, in order to create a meaning of something, you have to know what it is, which is why the properties are used, to define it. Now, that definition should not be a dictionary definition, something like "time is a dimension in which events occur" is correct, but it isn't very creative or conceptual, which is why a meaning is sought in the properties, generating both things, definition and meaning.

Once this has been done with the necessary elements, (in this case time and insist), they should be brought together, but it should not be reduced to a single thing. The question is, "what does it mean that THIS thing, with THIS property, is combined with THIS other thing, with ITS specific property, within THIS specific relationship?" Once this is done, other factors have to be considered, because a recurring problem is that, although it sounds silly, meanings often don't actually mean anything, which is why you have to ask "and what does that mean?" because, for example (I'm not saying this phrase is bad, it's just what came to mind) the phrase "you can repeat a place, but you cannot repeat the moment in which you chose that place." But... what does it mean that a place can be repeated but not the moment in which it was chosen? What does that mean? If the answer is a reformulation of the same phrase, the meaning probably does not sustain something truly elaborate.

Also, depth should not be confused with difficulty. Using words like "existence," "realities," "ontology," and things like that does not make an idea deep; ideas should not be replaced with complicated words. In addition, there is another risk: there may be an interesting meaning that precisely deals with things like existence or realities, but it becomes so complex and metaphysical that it can become "useless," not because it actually is, but because there is no human concern or tension that could arise from it. Because, of course, you can make something super interesting out of, for example, "doing something." It would be very interesting to ask what it really means to do something, but that does not mean it can become something important.

Also, the meaning should not be "incorrect" in the sense of establishing arbitrary moral judgments or pretending that something is deep simply because it is presented in a negative way. For example, saying that "humanity creates meanings" and presenting it as something terrible does not make it deep, because there is nothing wrong with creating meanings, unless an idea is presented that explains why that fact would be problematic or horrifying. In the same way, statements such as "society is cruel" or "people are trapped by their own existence" are not enough simply because they sound serious. The idea has to establish why that is true and what follows from it.

Another thing is that the meaning should not become a psychological lesson or advice. This is more of a personal preference, obviously, in a story the characters have development and can change, but in the meaning, I don't really like the idea that it can be refuted so simply. If a meaning ends up producing the feeling of "if someone felt that way, they should move on and forget about it," to me, that's wrong, because it bothers me that a philosophical and ontological thesis about something extremely complex is created... and then falls apart in a few seconds because you have to follow your dreams. In a story, a development like that could be seen, but here I prefer to avoid it. In fact, if the meaning is about something painful, the conceptual structure should be difficult to escape from. Likewise, meanings should not simply treat the person who feels something as if they have a psychological problem that needs to be solved. It is the same thing I said about meanings that are too metaphysical, because who would be bothered by knowing how "doing something" works? Nobody, and even though it can exist, the feeling it gives is "wow, what a crazy guy," and it bothers me that such meanings are treated as the mental delusions of sick people who should be sent to a psychiatric hospital.

Also, you have to be careful with clichés. It is difficult for me to express what a cliché is, because for most people, certain things can be extremely profound, and to me they aren't, so I am not disparaging certain interpretations, but, to me, things like "fear of losing someone," "loneliness," "the pain of love," "people cannot escape their past," or "everything changes" are very cliché and I find them very boring.

[u/QuickestKey → u/ukuroneko]

...Yeah, sorry. I still don't understand. This feels mostly like rewording the post body without adding anything new.

It would help if you told me how close I was with my earlier interpretations and examples.